Last time I remarked that Paul Reynolds was ‘wordy’ but ‘slanted’ in his journalism as he rode to the rescue of St. Koffi. There’s no doubt he’s a champion arse-coverer.
One of the notable things about the BBC’s website coverage is how individual articles are biased internally, while the general context of journalism (which few people appreciate) can be used to excuse a particular bias. For instance, Reynold’s latest offering presents Sen. Norm Coleman as simply ‘Republican’, and then places him firmly in a context of ‘neo-conservative’ criticism of St. Koffi. In another article Reynolds cleverly quotes Robert Novak (already presented as influential rightist) describing Coleman as ‘a born and bred liberal Democrat from Brooklyn before the claustrophobic liberalism of Minnesota’s Democratic Farmer Labor Party compelled him to become a Republican in 1996…’.
Reynolds never personally affirms Coleman’s liberal credentials, always associates him with neo-cons, ensures (by judicious quotation) that the affinity of tone between them is noticed, yet can say that he has properly recognised Coleman’s background in reporting him. Yet if Coleman’s background is genuine, and relevant to a politically charged atmosphere, BBC journalists should have no problem affirming it themselves, and repeating as is relevant.
What we can say unequivocally though is that in both articles Reynolds champions the position of the ‘high level panel’ invested (infested?) with Koffi’s blessing and gives leading action roles to members of that panel like David Hannay. Hannay’s pathetic and awesomely insensitive suggestion that critics of Koffi represent a US’ lynch mob tradition, with the implication of a US Government appointed body in that description, is awful. Worse still is that the BBC trumpet that perspective and fail to criticise it.
[Finally, after a moment’s pause, I think I should register my disgust that, unprompted by anything resembling a democratic impulse that might, to borrow David Hannay’s words, be described as ‘due process’, the BBC has managed to some degree to elevate Koffi’s self-selected defenders to a status which gives them equality if not seniority to a body representing the world’s foremost democracy and underwriter of the UN itself- the US Congress.]
Ed: “For instance, Reynold’s latest offering presents Sen. Norm Coleman as simply ‘Republican’, and then places him firmly in a context of ‘neo-conservative’ criticism of St. Koffi. In another article Reynolds cleverly quotes Robert Novak”
So your criticism is that he doesn’t repeat himself in the second article?
I also notice nobody has mentioned this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3722270.stm
“Names of US companies or citizens found on the secret Iraqi lists were left out of the report on grounds of the US Privacy Act, the ISG report notes.”
Hmm…
BTW, a definition of a lynch mob (according to hyperdictionary.com):
“a mob that kills a person for some presumed offense without legal authority”
I’m not sure that there’s any reason for a “Hmmmm…”. When it comes to pursuing any American companies or persons who are or were involved in the UN’s oil-for-food scam, the US courts will be as relentless as they were in the Enron scandal. On the other hand, the French don’t have the same zeal – Elf, Total, Boukassa, Greenpeace etc.
I was tentatively questioning the legal authority of the commission to name Charles Pasqua et.al.
(French Ambassador) Levitte’s reply to the allegations is very interesting in any case:
Click to access 101104_levitte_oilforfood.pdf
It’s interesting that the article starts off defending Kofi, then after stumbling through neocon this and right wing that, we learn (some of)the facts behind the case, namely Kofi Annan was in charge during the largest fraud in world history, and his son had a finger in the pie.
Looks like the BBC spining for that other great bastion of transnational-socialism the uN.
St. Kofi and son will not be able to duck this indefinitely. You can smell the fear in the air now, and I’ll cite one example to illlustrate: in response to the push amongst the public to oust the sainted one and all the disciples, we’re now being informed (via TV appearances of various UN “representatives”) that the UN is, suprise! not in NYC, it is actually on sovereign territory ( news to me and I’m a native). Thus, we have no right to ask the UN to pack up their toys and leave. I take this to indicate the UN is on the ropes and the House isn’t showing the any inclination to let up. Don’t let the BBC fool you, this story has become an established part of the 24 hour news cycle here in NY and something’s gonna give. I suspect St. Kofi will eventually be thrown to the wolves, or “lynch mob” if you prefer.
redken – I don’t know why you appear to believe the US public, via our elected representatives, will back off pursuing any American profiteers in this sorry affair, we have as much contempt for our own crooks as for foreign ones. I’m for letting ALL the truth come out, it’s about time this farce was put to an end.
redken
You’re bashing the US again, I see. But you’re not a lefty, are you? Oh no no no no. How’s about a word of condemnation towards Annan, the French, Russians and many others who have taken part in not only the largest fraud ever uncovered but also the most morally reprehensible?
Pete: I’m not bashing, I’m deeply sceptical, there’s a difference. As you obiviously didn’t read what the French Ambassador had to say I’ll give you a few highlights:
“We should all acknowledge that many allegations of fraud were discussed but to date no irrefutable proof has been produced. A case in point, the Essex tanker affair (one of the few cases to have been specifically discussed in the Committee) : the culpability of the various protagonists has never been proved. In any case, each of the contracts that went forward under the program had the consent of all the member states on the 661 Committee, including therefore the United States (and the United
Kingdom).”
“A distinction should be made in considering these contracts between those signed by French companies, those signed by subsidiaries of foreign companies in France that preferred to operate from France, and those dealing with the resale of goods produced abroad. Many American companies followed that practice, such as Flowserve Pumps (formerly Ingersoll Dresser Pumps), Dresser Rand, Fisher Rosmount, Baker International in the oil-related sector, and General Electric. All in all, such contracts add up to $552 million (including $130 Million for Halliburton and its
subsidiaries).”
“It is not the place of the French authorities to comment on the repeated charges leveled against the United Nations. We observe, however, that a high-level independent commission of inquiry, led by a former chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States, was appointed by the UN Secretary General in order to get to the bottom of what are at this stage simple allegations.”
“BNP Paribas, or rather its US subsidiary, subject to OFAC control and responsible for 59% of the funds, was not the only bank involved in the management of the program. JP Morgan Chase Bank managed the rest of the oil revenues, of which 13% was intended for implementation of the program in the three provinces in the North (beyond Saddam Hussein’s control) and in which a number of problems were apparently observed. 25% of the oil revenues was earmarked for the UNrun
compensation process (in the framework of which a number of errors and duplications were committed which could also legitimately raise questions of an ethical and accounting nature).”
redken
Squirm away !
Kofi is TOAST, and the UN’s reputation is shot to pieces already. Indeed – quagmire for the UN ?
Read my link John, that’s all I’m saying.
redken
First, I detect a French Ambassador launching a damage-limitation exercise by flinging out accusations in the hope of deflecting the barbs. Second, of course there have been no convictions yet, the investigation in ongoing (despite being royally hampered by the UN). Third, in referring to your leftyness and US-bashing I should have invoked your comment from further up to which I was responding:
“Names of US companies or citizens found on the secret Iraqi lists were left out of the report on grounds of the US Privacy Act, the ISG report notes.” Hmm…
Good article here from Wretchard. Although the BBC is not mentioned it does go some way to explaining the mindset of those in the MSM:
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/12/tar-and-feathers-at-first-david.html
Pete: To re-clarify what I thought I’d already clarified: “I was tentatively questioning the legal authority of the commission to name Charles Pasqua et.al.”
If you think that’s US-bashing then you really have got your head up GWB’s proverbial.
Can we just clarify your standpoint here?
1. Despite no firm evidence, you’re prepared to take a list of alleged profiteers as your evidence for the UN’s guilt?
2. Most of the allegations that centre on a US subsidy of a French bank count entirely as the UN’s responsibility?
3. That the Office of Foreign Assets Control aren’t in any way responsible for the said US subsidiary?
theghostofredken will you cede that the UN completely failed in its administration of the Oil-for-food program?
Andrew: Can we wait for some serious evidence to be produced first?
So you do not believe that Saddam Hussein skimmed proceeds illegally off UN Oil for Food shipments. That’s the crux of the matter and I can’t believe you don’t believe what is enourmously obvious fact. Nobody contends that Oil for Food was run properly, not even the UN itself.
Moreover the UN has 55 audits/reports on the UN oil for food scandal which unfortunately for us evidence hunters they won’t release. Or do you need evidence of that too. 😉
“So you do not believe that Saddam Hussein skimmed proceeds illegally off UN Oil for Food shipments?”
The horse has already metaphorically bolted on that one; the issue now is question of responsibility. And whether that responsibility falls entirely on the UN, or a combination of the UN and the OFAC, or perhaps solely on fraudulent individuals, we’ll have to wait to find out. Allegations do not equal guilt.
Who administrated the UN oil for food program?
It was all Bush’s fault, obviously.
Or maybe there was no fraud running to billions and billions of dollars that sustained Saddam in power – this is all a cunning wheeze from Karl Rove.
JohninLondon – It’s Rove, all Rove. He’s Bush’s Brain, you know.
If I run a bank and a number of shady customers make increasingly obvious illegal deals and I do nothing about it I am either a) hopelessly incompetent or, more likely, b)paid off or part of the scam.
Whichever it is, I’ve done wrong.
redken
I’ll try one more time. Your first post on this thread quoted a BBC article you linked to:
“Names of US companies or citizens found on the secret Iraqi lists were left out of the report on grounds of the US Privacy Act, the ISG report notes.” Hmm…
We’ve been around the block before over the question of you being a lefty or not. Frankly its neither here nor there what you believe but you do deny being a lefty even though you repeatedly criticise the US and never offer up praise when due. I was drawing attention to this by highlighting yet another pop at the US by you even when discussion centres on what is now recognised as the greatest fraud ever uncovered, one perpetrated by the UN. THAT is what I was posting about. No more, no less, no anything else.
File this link under “water seeks it’s own level”. Evidently, Kofi still enjoys solid support within the “international community”.
http://barcepundit-english.blogspot.com/
( hope it works, I’m still a novice at this)
redken,
Back at the start of this discussion I queried your
“Names of US companies or citizens found on the secret Iraqi lists were left out of the report on grounds of the US Privacy Act, the ISG report notes.” Hmm…
because I inferred that you were having another pop at the US. I don’t think that I was alone in this percerption yet you said that you were asking why the US had the right to reveal Charles Pasqua’s alleged links to the affair. Putting the question to you or any other like-minded person, what steps do you believe that the French judiciary would take if/when the Senate’s investigations show clearcut corruption within the French politico-business strata? I hope we agree that the US authorities are preparing serious moves against any Americans involved in this sad episode hence the retention of the names.
For the record, I consider the US to be morally superior to France. THERE! – I’ve said it!!
Thanks, Allen! Coming from a person who clearly has morals, our nation can take that as a RARE compliment ( we aren’t used to them, as you can imagine) And don’t worry, it won’t go to our heads as, let’s face it, MOST countries are morally superior to France.
Has this been posted – the classic argument why Kofi must resign :
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/12/throwing-kofi-to-dogs-glenn-reynolds.html
I just finished reading a great book about the real truth behind the CIA, the BUSH/CHENEY, and Tony Blair cover ups. The most devastating terrorist act in history was not the 9-11, it was the rigged voting of million of ballots behind the scene. CRIMES OF THE RIGHT by author HOPE NEWMAN hard cover ISBN is: 0595665748, and is available from: Amazon.com, barnesandnobel.com, and Borders.com.
It is an awesome, suspenseful, and action-packed book. I know you’ll love it. Please help spread the word.
Moral superiority??
Maybe, but the French have the best food, wine and women. I’ll go with the forces of evil on this one.
The italians absolutely dick on French food and IMO wine. Also they’re about 1000% friendlier.
Andrew
I’m with you on that one. I can even stretch to speaking from experience for once, having lived in both countries for 2 years in each. On food, wine, the girls (the girls!!) climate, architecture, landscape and welcoming attitude to foreigners the Italians trounce the smelly ones. Even their Alps are more spectacular, and I’ll be sliding down them next week.
Deciding a winner on Italy vs France in matters cultural and edible is an extremely difficult and pleasant task which I intend to commence tonight with dinner at La Trouvaille.
However, surely the scheming Italians are even more morally dubious than the French??
Hey-y-y-upp! Yet another avenue of UN corruption pops up, this time involving the nephew nephew of Boutros-Boutros-Ghali-Ghali-former-former-Secretary-Secretary-General-General — tucked into an article about Koffee Kup’s badly bent buddy Benon Sevan: http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/21163.htm
…from memory, Claudia Rosett wrote about the Panama scams at least two years ago, though it’ll be news to many.
Prediction: BBC won’t touch this in detail or at all. Also, anti-American hypocrites in this neighbourhood (e.g., the redken/something who plods thing) will suck it all up and either (a) go “deeply sceptical and thoughtful,” or (b) FOAD.
It’s all Bush’s fault?
Well, partly. And Clinton’s too.
It’s pretty clear that the US gave deliberate tacit approval to the export of oil to Turkey.
So to hang Kofi Annan for it is hypocritical in the least.
You see Will, no it isn’t. The US knew that the scheme was being subverted, it simply couldn’t do anything about it. The scandal here is that the UN administration (ie the body with the power to suspend the scheme or whatever) not only knew what was going on but expanded it whilst fraud was also expanding. In other words this administration completely failed in running the scheme properly and indeed became corrupt. So I fail to see how it can be in any way hypocritical to demand accountability over a fraud totalling billions of dollars. Enron execs are behind bars, are we going to see the same in the UN?
Most officials at the UN are crooks. It is an inherent flaw in it’s shady, non-transparent, bureaucratic design.
Too many crappy tinpot nations have too much power. We shouldn’t all be on an equal footing. The UN is a perversion of the Hegelian model of ‘strong nations leading weak nations’ based upon the parent-child relationship.
At the UN the infants are in charge, get a platform to stand up to stamp their feet and scream abuse, and have a vote over everything. All at the parent’s expense!
Above, John Wiley (wileybestbooks@lycos.com) enthuses over a book. Amazingly the same off-topic views are expressed by Janet Collins ( JamesKBook@netscape.net)in a comment at The Daily Ablution.
I hope that John & Janet can get together for dinner, there’s spam on the menu.
“The US knew that the scheme was being subverted, it simply couldn’t do anything about it.”
Then what exactly do OFAC do?
“The Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) of the US Department of the Treasury administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on US foreign policy and national security goals against targeted foreign countries, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, and those engaged in activities related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. OFAC acts under Presidential wartime and national emergency powers, as well as authority granted by specific legislation, to impose controls on transactions and freeze foreign assets under US jurisdiction. Many of the sanctions are based on United Nations and other international mandates, are multilateral in scope, and involve close cooperation with allied governments.”
http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/
Allan: “(…) what steps do you believe that the French judiciary would take if/when the Senate’s investigations show clearcut corruption within the French politico-business strata?”
By all accounts Pasqua isn’t the most popular of ex-politicians and also, I hasten to add, has been implicated in fraud at least twice before so I doubt there would be many a tear shed in France if he were proved to be guilty. To be honest I haven’t a clue what would happen in terms of the French legal proceedings.
theghostofredken surely you aren’t advocating that the US should have taken military action to enforce UN resolutions are you? To shut down the illegal oil pipeline between Iraq and Syria for example?
LOL wally! Option (a) wins by the look of things LOL!!
Andrew P: You’ve lost me completely, I was suggesting that it was OFAC’s jurisdiction to monitor the funds which were going through the US subsidiary rather than how the oil and funds were being subverted at ‘ground level’, as it were.
But the body that knew exactly where things were going wrong, without need for significant investigation, was the UN Oil for Food Administration as it was them who ran the program in the first place.
What I’m saying is that this body in seemingly willingly allowing a massive fraud to take place under it’s watch is ultimately responsible for this debacle. One wonders why the UN didn’t contact the OFAC with great urgency to pass over evidence of all the wrongdoing right at the beginning of this affair.
The only analogy I can think of with your point is that of the mafia trying to blame the FBI for not properly investigating their crimes when they’re finally caught.
redken
There’s a whole lot more than Charles Pasqua involved in this scam and it goes much higher and wider than him. Pasqua and Co are friends of Chirac and he (Chirac) will look after his amis. Ken Lay was a friend of George W. Bush: Ken Lay is in jail.
Red ken can only see evil in the US and the UN can do no wrong.
A true beleiver in transnational socialism!
Rob
You’re right, just don’t expect him to admit it.